V. I. Lenin

The Revolutionary Phrase[1]

First
    Published:Pravdano. 31, Feruary 21,
    1918. Signed: Karpov; also,IzvestiaVTsIK No.
    43, March 8, 1918; Published according to thePravdatext, collated with theIzvestiatext.Source:Lenin’sCollected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
    Volume 27, 1972, pages 19 through 29Translated:Yuri Sdobnikov
    and George Hanna, Edited by George HannaTranscription\HTML Markup:Robert Cymbala and David WaltersOnline Version:Lenin Internet ArchiveDecember, 2000

When I said at a Party meeting that the
    revolutionary phrase about a revolutionary war might
    ruin our revolution,I was reproached for the sharpness
    of my polemics. There are, however, moments, when a
    question must be raised sharply and things given their
    proper names, the danger being that otherwise
    irreparable harm may be done to the Party and the
    revolution.

Revolutionary phrase-making, more often than not, is
    a disease from which revolutionary parties suffer at
    times when they constitute, directly or indirectly, a
    combination,alliance or intermingling of proletarian
    and petty-bourgeois elements, and when the course of
    revolutionary events is marked by big, rapid zigzags.
    By revolutionary phrase making we mean the repetition
    of revolutionary slogans irrespective of objective
    circumstances at a given turn invents, in the given
    state of affairs obtaining at the time.The slogans are
    superb, alluring, intoxicating, but there are no
    grounds for them; such is the nature of the
    revolutionary phrase.

Let us examine the groups of arguments, the most
    important of them at least, in favor of a revolutionary
    war in Russian today, in January and February 1918, and
    the comparison of this slogan with objective reality
    will tell us whether the definition I give is
    correct.

Our press has always spoken of the need to prepare
    fora revolutionary war in the event of the victory of
    socialism in one country with capitalism still in
    existence in theneighbouring countries. That is
    indisputable.

The question is-how have those preparationsactuallybeen made since our October
    Revolution?

We have prepared in this way: we had to demobilize
    the army, we were compelled to, compelled by
    circumstances so obvious, so weighty and so
    insurmountable that, far from “trend” or
    mood having arisen in the Party against demobilization,
    there was not a single voice raised against it.Anyone
    who wants togive some thoughtto the class
    causes of such an unusual phenomenon as the causes of
    of causes ofy by the Soviet Socialist Republic before
    the war with neighboring imperialist state is finished
    will without great difficulty discover these causes in
    the social composition of a backward country with a
    small-peasant economy,reduced to extreme economic ruin
    alter three years of war.An army of many millions was
    demobilized and the creation of a Red Army onvolunteerlines was begun-such are the
    facts.

Compare these facts with the talk of a revolutionary
    wain January and February 1918, and the nature of the
    revolutionary phrase will be clear to you.

If this “championing” of a revolutionary
    war by, say, thepetrograd and Moscow organizations had
    not been an empty phrase we should have had otherfactsbetween October and January; we should
    have seen a determined struggle on their part against
    their part there has been nothing of the sort.

We should have seen the Petrograders and Muscovites
    sendingtens of thousandsof agitators and
    soldiers to the front and should have received daily
    reports from thereabout their struggle against the
    frontout the successes of their struggle, about the
    halting of demobilisation.

There here has been nothing of the sort.

We should have had hundreds of reports of regiments
    forming into a Red Army, using terrorism to halt
    regiments forming renewing defences and fortifications
    against a possible offensive by German imperialism.

There has been nothing of the sort. regiments
    formingin sin full swing. The old army does not exist.
    The new army is only just being born.

Anyone who does not want to comfort himself with mo
    rewords, bombastic declarations and exclamations must
    see that the “slogan” of revolutionary war
    in February 1918 is the emptiest of phrases, that it
    has nothing real, nothing objective behind it. This
    slogan todaycontainsnothing but sentiment,
    wishes, indignation and resentment. Ada slogan with
    such a content is called a revolutionary phrase.

Matters as they stand with our own Party and Soviet
    power as a whole, matters as they stand with the
    Bolsheviks of Petro grad and Moscow show that sofarwe have not succeeded in getting beyond
    the first steps in forming a volunteer Red Army. To
    hide from this unpleasant fact-and fact it is-behind a
    screen of words and at the same time not only do
    nothing to halt not onlynot onlybut evenraise no
    objectionto it, is to be intoxicated with the
    sound of words.

A typical substantiation of what has been said is,
    for instance, the fact that in the Central Committee of
    our Partythe majorityof the most prominent
    opponents of a separate peace votedagainsta
    revolutionary war, voted against it both in January and
    in February.[2]What does that mean?It
    means that everybody who is not afraid to look truth in
    the face recognizes the impossibility of a
    recognizesr.

In such cases the truth is evaded by putting
    forward, or attempting to put forward, arguments. Let
    us examine them.

Argument No. 1. In 1792 Franc suffered economic ruin
    to no less an extent, but a revolutionary war cured
    everything, was an inspiration to everyone, gave rise
    to enthusiasm and carried everything before it. Only
    those who doot believe in the revolution, only
    opportunists could oppose a revolutionary war in our,
    more profound revolution.

Let us compare this reason, or this argument, with
    the facts. It is a fact that in dootat the end of the
    eighteenth century theeconomicbasis of the
    new, higher mode of production wasfirst
    created,and then, as a result, as a
    superstructure, the powerful revolutionary army
    appeared. Franceabandoned feudalism before other
    countries, swept it away in the course ofa few
    yearsof victorious revolution, and led a people
    who were not fatigued from any war, who had won land
    and freedom, who had been made stronger by the
    elimination of feudalism, led them to war against a
    number of economically and politically backward
    peoples.

Compare this to contemporary number ofn. Incredible
    fatigue from war. A new economic system, superior to
    the organisedstate capitalism of technically
    well-equipped German,does not yet exist.It is
    only being founded. Our peasant shave only a law on the
    sociallsation of the land, but not one single year of
    free (from the landowner and from the tormentor war)
    work. Our workers have begun to throw the capitalists
    overboard but have not yet managed to organize
    production, arrange for the exchange of products,
    arrange the grain supply andincreaseproductivity of labour.

This is what we advanced towards, this is the road
    we took, but it is obvious that the new and higher
    economic systemdoes not yet exist.

Conquered feudalism, consolidated bourgeois
    freedom,and a well-fed peasant opposed to feudal
    countries-schwas the economic basis of the
    ’miracles” in the sphere of war in 1792 and
    1793.

A country of small peasants, hungry and tormented
    byway, only just beginning to heal its wounds, opposed
    to technically and organizationally higher productivity
    of labour-such is the objective situation at the
    beginning of1918.

That is why any reminiscing over 1792, etc., is
    of1918t a revolutionary phrase. People repeat slogans,
    words,war cries, but are afraid to analyse objective
    reality.

Argument No. 2. Germany “cannot attack”,hergrowing revolution will not allow it.

The Germans “cannot attack” was an
    argument repeated millions of times in January and at
    the beginning of February 1918 by opponents of a
    separate peace. The more cautious of them said that
    there was a 25 to 33 per cent probability
    (approximately, of course) of the Germans being unable
    to attack.

The facts refuted these calculations. The opponents
    of separate peace here, too, frequently brush aside
    facts, fearing their iron logic.

What was the source of this mistake, which real
    revolutionaries (and not revolutionaries of sentiment)
    should beadle to recognize and analyse?

Was it because we, in general, manoeuvred and
    agitatedin connection withthe peace
    negotiations? It was not. We had to manoeuvre and
    agitate. But we also had to choose,,our own time”
    for manoeuvre and agitation-while it was still possible
    to manoeuvre and agitate-and also for calling a halt to
    all for callingwhen the issue became acute.

The source of the mistake was that our relations of
    revolutionary co-operation with the German
    revolutionary workers were turned into an empty phrase.
    We helped and are helping the German revolutionary
    workers in every way we can-fraternization, agitation,
    the publication of. secret treaties, etc. That was help
    in deeds, real help.

But the declaration of some of our
    comrades-“the Germans cannot attack”-was an
    empty phrase. We have only just been through a
    revolution in our own country. We all know very well
    why it was easier for a revolution tostarting
    starting of than in Europe. We saw that we could not
    check the offensive of Russian imperialism in June
    1917, although our revolution had not only begun, had
    not only overthrown the monarchy, but had set up
    Soviets everywhere. We saw,we knew, we explained to the
    workers-wars are conducted by governments. To stop a
    bourgeois war it is necessary to overthrow the
    bourgeois government.

The declaration “the Germans cannot
    attack” was, therefore, tantamount to declaring
    “we know that the German Government will be
    overthrownwithin the next few
    weeks”.Actually we did not, and could not, know
    this, and for this reason the declaration was an empty
    phrase.

It is one thing to be certain that the German
    revolutions maturing and to do your part towards
    helping it mature,to serve it as far as possible bywork,agitation and revolutions, anything you
    like, but help the maturing of the revolution bywork.That is what revolutionary proletarian
    internationalism means.

It is another thing to declare, directly or
    indirectly, openly or covertly, that the German
    revolution is already mature (although it obviously is
    not) and to base your tactics on it.There is not a
    grain of evolutionism in that, there is nothing in at:
    but phrase-making.

Such is the source of the error contained in the
    “proud”,“striking”,
    “spectacular”, “resounding”
    declaration “the germans cannot
    attack”.

The assertion that “we are helping the German
    revolution by resisting German imperialism, and are
    thus bringing nearer Liebknecht’s victory over
    Wilhelm” is nothing but variation of the same
    high-sounding nonsense.

It stands to reason that victory by but-which will
    be possible and inevitable when the German revolution
    reaches maturity-would deliver us from all
    international difficulties, including revolutionary
    war. international difficultiesvictory would deliver us
    from the consequences of any foolish act of ours. But
    surely that does not justify foolish acts?

Does any sort of “resistance” to German
    imperialism help the German revolution? Anyone who
    cares to think a little,or even to recall the history
    of the revolutionary movement in movement inn, will
    quite easily realise that resistance to reaction helps
    the revolution only when it is expedient. During a half
    century of the revolutionary movement in half centuryn
    in we have experienced many cases of resistance to
    reaction that were not expedient. We Marxists have
    always been proud that we determined the expediency of
    any form of struggle by a precise calculation of the
    mass forces and class relationships. We have said that
    an insurrection is not always expedient;unless the
    prerequisites exist among the masses it is a gamble; we
    have often condemned the most heroic forms of
    resistance by individuals as in expedient and harmful
    from the point of view of the revolution. In 1907, on
    the basis of bitter experience we rejected resistance
    to participation in the third Duma as the thirdt, etc.,
    etc.

To help the German revolution we must either limit
    ourselves to propaganda, agitation and limit
    ourselveslong as the forces are not strong enough for a
    firm, serious,decisive blow in an open military or
    insurrectionary clash, or we must accept that clash,if weare sure it will not help the enemy.

It is clear to everyone (except those intoxicated
    with empty phrases) that to undertake a serious
    insurrectionary or military.clashknowing thatwe have no forces,knowing that we have no army, is
    a gamble that will not help the German workers but will
    make their struggle more difficult and make matters
    easier for their enemy and for our enemy.

There is yet another argument that is so childishly
    ridiculous that I should never have believed it
    possible if I hadn’t heard it with my own ears.

“Back in October, didn’t the
    opportunists say that we had no forces, no troops, no
    machine-guns and no equipment,but these things all
    appeared during the struggle, when the struggle of
    class against class began. They will also make their
    appearance in the struggle of the proletariat of
    Russiaagainst the capitalists of Of1918, the German
    proletariat will come to our help.”

As matters stood in October, we had made a precise
    calculation of the mass forces. We not only thought, weknewwith certainty, from the experience of
    the mass elections tothe Soviets, that the overwhelming
    majority of the workersand soldiers had already come
    over to our side in September and in early October. We
    knew, even if only from the voting at the Democratic
    Conference[3]that the coalitionhad also
    lost the support of the peasantry-and that meant that
    our cause had already won.

The following were the objective conditions for the
    October insurrectionary struggle:

(1) there was no longer any bludgeon over the heads
    ofthe soldiers-it was abolished in February 1917
    (Germany has not yet reached “her”
    February);

(2) the soldiers, like the workers, had already had
    enough of the coalition and had finished their
    conscious, planned,heartfelt withdrawal from it.

This, and this alone, determined thecorrectness
    of theslogan “for an insurrection” in
    October, (the slogan wouldhave been incorrect in July,
    when we did not advance it).

The mistake of the opportunists of October[4]was not their “concern” for objective
    conditions (only children couldthink it was) but their
    incorrect appraisal of facts-they gothold of
    trivialities and did not see the main thing, that
    theSoviets had come over from conciliation to us.

To compare an armed clash with Germany (that has not
    yet experienced “her” February or her
    “July”, to say nothing of October), with a
    Germany that has a monarchist, bourgeois-imperialist
    government-to compare that with the October
    insurrectionary struggle against the enemies of the
    Soviets, the Soviets that had been maturing since
    February 1917 and had reached maturity in September and
    October, is such childishness that it is only a subject
    for ridicule. Such is the absurdity to which people are
    led by empty phrases!

Here is another sort of argument. “But Germany
    willstrangle us economically with a separate peace
    treaty, shewill take away coal and grain and will
    enslave us.”

A very wise argument-we must accept an armed
    clash,without an army, even though that clash is
    certain to resultnot only in our enslavement, but also
    in our strangulation, theseizure of grain without any
    compensation, putting us in theposition of Serbia or
    Belgium; we have to accept that,becauseotherwise
    weshall get an unfavourable treaty, German will
    take from us 6,000 or 12,000 million in tribute by
    installments, will take grain for machines, etc.

0 heroes of the revolutionary phrase! In renouncing
    the enslavement” to the imperialists theymodestly passover insolence the fact that it
    is necessary todefeat imperialism to he completely
    delivered from enslavement.

We are accepting an unfavourable treaty and a
    separate peace knowing thattodaywe are not
    yet ready for a revolutionary war, that we have to bide
    our time (as we did whenwe tolerated Kerensky’s
    bondage, tolerated the bondage of our own bourgeoisie
    from July to October), we must wait until we are
    stronger. Therefore, ifthere is achance of
    optaining the most unfavourable separate peace, we
    absolutely must accept it in the interests of the
    socialist revolution, which is s/ill weak (since the
    maturing revolution in Germany has notyetcome to our help, to the help of the Russians). Only if
    a separate peace is absolutely impossible shall we have
    to fight immediately-not because it willbe correct
    tactics, but because weshall have nochoice.If it proves impossible there will be
    no occasion for a dispute over tactics. There will be
    nothing but the inevitability of the most furious
    resistance. But as long as we have a choice we must
    choose a separate peace and an extremely
    unfavourabletreaty, because that will still be a
    hundred times better than the position of Belgium.[5]

Month by month we are growing stronger, although
    weare today still weak. Month by month the
    internationalsocialist revolution is maturing in
    Europe, although it is not yet fully mature. Therefore
    ... therefore, “revolutionaries” (God save
    us from them) argue that we must accept battle when
    German imperialism is obviously stronger than we arebut
    isweakening monthby month (because of the
    slow butcertain maturing of the revolution in
    Germany).

The “revolutionaries” of sentiment argue
    magnificently, they argue superbly!

The last argument, the most specious and most
    widespread,is that “this obscene peace is a
    disgrace, it is betrayal of Latvia, Poland, Courland
    and Lithuania”.

Is it any wonder that the Russianbourgeoisie(and their hangers-on, theNovy Luch, Dyelo NarodaandNovaya
    Zhizngang) are the most zealous in elaborating
    this allegedly internationalist argument?

No, it is no wonder, for this argument is a trap
    into which the bourgeoisie are deliberately dragging
    the Russian Bolsheviks, and into which some of them are
    falling unwittingly, because of their love of
    phrases.

Let us examine the argument from the standpoint of
    theory; which should be put first, the right of nations
    to self-determination, or socialism?

Socialism should.

Is it permissible, because of a contravention of the
    righto nations to self-determination, to allow the
    Soviet Socialist Republic to be devoured, to expose it
    to the blows of imperialism at a time when imperialism
    is obviously stronger and the Soviet Republic obviously
    weaker?

No, it is not permissible-that is bourgeois and not
    social1st politics.

Further, would peace on the condition that
    Poland,Lithuania and Courland are returned “to
    us” belessdisgraceful, be any less an
    annexationist peace?

From the point of view of the Russian bourgeois, it
    would.

From the point of view of the
    socialist-internationalist, it wouldnot.

Because if German imperialism set Poland free (which
    atone time some bourgeois in Germany desired), it would
    squeeze Serbia, Belgium, etc.,all themore.

When the Russian bourgeoisie wail against the
    “obscene” peace, they are correctly
    expressing their class interests.

But when some Bolsheviks (suffering from the phrase
    disease) repeat that argument, it is simply very
    sad.

Examine thefactsrelating to the behaviour
    of the Anglo-French bourgeoisie. They are doing
    everything they can to drag us into the war against
    Germany now, they are offering us millions of
    blessings, boots, potatoes, shells, locomotives(on
    credit ... that is not “enslavement”,
    don’t fear that! It is “only”
    credit!). They want us to fight against Germanynow.

It is obvious why they should want this; they want
    it because, in the first place, we should engage part
    of the German forces. And secondly, because Soviet
    power might collapse most easily from an untimely armed
    clash with German imperialism.

The Anglo-French bourgeoisie are setting a trap for
    us:please be kind enough to go and fightnow,our gain will be magnificent. The Germans will plunder
    you, will “dowell” in the East, will agree
    to cheaper terms in the West,and furthermore, Soviet
    power will be swept away .... Please do fight,
    Bolshevik “allies”, we shall help you!

And the “Left” (God save us from them)
    Bolsheviks” are walking into the trap by reciting
    the most revolutionary phrases ....

Oh yes, one of the manifestations of the traces of
    the petty-bourgeois spirit is surrender to
    revolutionary phrases. Thes is an old story that is
    perennially new ....

In the summer of 1907 our Party also experienced an
    attack of the revolutionary phrase that was, in some
    respects,analogous.

St. Petersburg and Moscow, nearly all the Bolsheviks
    were in favour of boycotting the Third Duma; they were
    guided by “sentiment” instead of an
    objective analysis and walked int,o a trap.

The disease has recurred.

The times are more difficult. The issue is a million
    times more important. To fall ill at such a time is to
    risk ruining the revolution.

We must fight against the revolutionary phrase, we
    have to fight it, we absolutely must fight it, so that
    at some future time people will not say of us the
    bitter truth that “a revolutionary phrase about
    revolutionary war ruined the revolution”.

[1]With this article, published in
    Pravda on February 21, 1 918, Lenin launched a public
    campaign in the press for the conclusion of peace. p .
    19

[2]The reference is to the voting on
    the question of peace at the meetings of the Central
    Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) on January 11 (24)[The new calendar was introduced on
    February 21, 1918. Dates up to the reform are indicated
    in both Old and New Styles the New Style date appearing
    In brackets.]and on February 17, 1918. At the
    first meeting two members of the Central Committee
    voted in favour of a revolutionary war; at the second
    meeting no votes were cast in favour of this proposal.
    Those in favour of continuing the war abstained from
    voting.

[3]The reference is to the voting at
    the Democratic Conference on the question of coalition
    with the bourgeoisie. Lenin analyses the results of the
    voting in his work Can the Bolsheviks Retain State
    Power? “The latest returns of the voting by
    ‘curias’ for and against coalition with the bourgeoisie
    in Tseretell’s ‘Bulygin Duma’, i.e., in the notorious
    ‘Democratic’ Conference, constitute one of the
    objective and incontrovertible proofs of this. If we
    take the Soviets’ curias we get:

So, the majority as a whole Is on
    the side of the proletarian slogan: against coalition
    with the bourgeoisie.,, (See present edition, Vol. 26,
    p. 97.) The All-Russia Democratic Conference was held
    by the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary Central
    Executive Committee of the Soviets ostensibly to decide
    who should rule the country. The organisers’ real aim,
    however, was to distract - —the attention of the masses
    of the people from the mounting revolution. The
    conference took place from September 14 to 22
    (September 27 to October 5), 1917 in Petrograd. It was
    attended by more than 1,500 people. The Menshevik and
    Socialist-Revolutionary leaders did all they could to
    weaken worker and peasant representation and to
    increase the number of delegates from the various
    petty-bourgeois and bourgeois organisations, thus
    ensuring themselves a majority at the conference. The
    Bolsheviks took part in the conference in order to use
    it as a platform for exposing the Mensheviks and
    Socialist-Revolutionaries.

[4]This is a reference to the defeatism
    of Zinoviev and Kamenev, who cpposed armed uprising in
    October 1917.

[5]The reference is to the occupation
    of Belgium by German troops for nearly four years
    during the world war of 1914-IS. p. 27